Wow. I don't have any good feelings about the argument. I am troubled however by the suggestion that they may in essence amend the statute by disregarding (deleting) the words public defender so that the statute is constitutional or alternatively interpreting (adding language) to suggest that the intent of the legislature was to include regional counsel as public defender for funding purposes only. The only advantage to the latter argument is that the counties should then pounce and argue that there is a problem with the legislature redefining the words "public defender" in the state constitution years after that provision was drafted and adopted.
I guess it depends on what school of thought you align yourself concerning to what extent the judiciary can legislate in order to preserve the legislation.
Now we wait.
[NOTE: I'm editing this even though it is TheReader's post to add a post title and to weigh in with my own prediction. I respect any who saw something else in the oral arguments, but to me it is very clear that the Regional Counsel law will be upheld to the letter, and probably praised in the opinion as bold and innovative. What happens to the budget of the RCs afterward is the topic of future speculation -- ArrMatey]
6 comments:
I unfortunately agree with your assessment. While some hard questions were asked of the State, there were many more "softballs" thrown at them and what's worse the Justices seemingly making the State's aguments for them. Justice Quince even had the nerve to ask the State to try to make her understand the other side's argument, wich she just could not understand ("...am I missing something?") Honestly, what did she expect him to say?
Ms. Rudistine was seemingly unable to answer anything to the Justices' satisfaction, not because she did a bad job, quite on the contrary, but they were not so much asking questions as basicly telling her why she had no leg to stand on. Most of the time, she did not even have the time or ability to answer a question before she was "attacked" on another issue.
Unfortunately my suspicion appears to be confirmed that the Stay was lifted not just because it's automatic and FACDL failed to argue sufficiently why it shouldn't be, but because the Supremes weren't going to rule as the Trial Judge had and they knew it. But that's just me...
I was surprised, hell, I was shocked at the disparaging remarks by the justices about appointed counsel - that it was a longtime problem and the legislature was finally dealing with it, that didn't appt. counsel just want to get in and out of cases while a professional office would litigate them?, etc.
I don't know what alternative universe I stepped into, but here in Miami-Dade the dependency regional counsels are the least competent group of attorneys I have ever seen. After 2 months of observation, I'm still waiting for one of them to say something on the record besides her name when parties announce at the begiining of a case.
I would have to agree with everyone else's assessment. It will be interesting to see how this effects Marion County where we have no regional counsels at all? But I do know this, the clients will suffer. I have seen what is happening in other places in this circuit and like Miami, all you get is name, rank and serial number. I will keep you advised. Funding will be interesting.
It is very difficult to assess an appellate Court's opinion on an oral argument. There appears to be an undisputed fundamental problem that the ROCs have been appointed instead of being elected. The ROCs are government agencies appointed by the Governor for 4 year terms while as FACDL pointed out, the Justices are appointed for life creating a degree of independence from the 2 other branches of government.
The Fla. Constitution requries the Public Defenders to be elected, not appointed and to live within the relevant circuits.
The ROCs do not have independence from the executive branch of government and the ROCs are clearly Public Defenders, which require to be elected and to live within the relevant circuits.
The appointed attorneys do not work for Public Defender offices and do not have allegiance to the executive branch and therefore do not have a conflict.
The executive is trying to prosecute and defend cases at the same time.
I mostly agree with you anonymous # 3, but I just don't see that making much of a difference to the Supreme Court. I'm just expressing my gut feeling on that.
Just a note to say Regional Counsel has secured in Marion County, Fifth, allegedly, two attorneys. Diana Simpson, Esq., is the only dependency attorney and Sharon Pettway-Fernandez will be doing criminal. They are supposed to begin working soon.
Post a Comment